> -----Original Message----- > From: Rory O'Farrell [mailto:ofarr...@iol.ie] > Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 07:59 > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Re: [lazy consensus] FreeBSD as a new supported platform? > > On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 07:49:51 -0800 > "Dennis E. Hamilton" <orc...@apache.org> wrote: > > > In thinking about this, I suggest that supported means (1) > dist.apache.org authenticated binary distributions (as mirrored) are > provided from source releases and (2) bugzilla provides for the platform > as a named OS [type]. > > > > I note that OS/2 and FreeBSD (and Solaris) qualify under (2) but not > under (1). I've seen other open-source projects link to sources of > other builds without including them under their umbrella of official > releases. Not certain where bugs are supposed to be reported in those > cases. > > > > - Dennis > > > > PS: Whether or not there is a link to support.openoffice.org in a > distributed binary is no help because counterfeit distributions do that > too. > > But surely the distributed binary would have links to valid checksum > files on the AOO distribution site, which counterfeit distributions > would not have? [orcmid]
It depends how the counterfeit is distributed. Most of them are with download pages and installers that do not provide any kind of links to hash values or digital signature files. These target casual users and they give no evidence of hashes and signatures that users would check, even if they knew what to do with such links. The check-for-updates in the binary is also not always altered. Note that the binary does not have those links. It is the download page that provides them. [ ... ] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
